Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

"Safer guns"/ Industry accountability.

Mr_Anderson
Posts: 116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 3:49:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Can I just say I hate articles like this? Whoever wrote this should get a Darwin award. I'm going to start off with the latter half of the article first. To start, I hate the idea of so called "smart guns" in it's current form. The technology isn't reliable and it only works with one person. How are you going to teach someone to shoot when they can't operate the gun? How is a spouse or child going to be able to defend themselves if the "owner" isn't home? How are they going to address all the guns with "non-smart" actions? I hate this idea with a passion. It needs to be heavily changed or it needs to die entirely.

Secondly, microstamping is a logistical impossibility. It's never going to happen, it's never going to be practical. It sounds like a maybe good idea for like 3 seconds. This idea just needs to die.

More on that:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...

http://blurbrain.com...

And Third, you can't sue a manufacturer for CRIMINAL MISUSE of their products. That would be like suing Gerber or Ka-Bar because they made a knife with a 8inch blade which was used to kill people. And for the record, knives hold a higher kill count than AR15s (1490 > 285)

I'm probably not alone on this and I know there are people here who think otherwise. What do you think?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 2:50:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

Can I just say I hate articles like this? Whoever wrote this should get a Darwin award. I'm going to start off with the latter half of the article first. To start, I hate the idea of so called "smart guns" in it's current form. The technology isn't reliable and it only works with one person. How are you going to teach someone to shoot when they can't operate the gun? How is a spouse or child going to be able to defend themselves if the "owner" isn't home? How are they going to address all the guns with "non-smart" actions? I hate this idea with a passion. It needs to be heavily changed or it needs to die entirely.


Speaking first to "smart" technology. Yes it can work. Small issues like how many can be associated with a gun can and will be overcome (even though it is NOT necessary to be successful). When every effort to implement is met with not just resistance, but lunatic rage, it is hard to get people interested in working on it. This is not going away, and will be a with us if you like it or not - dismiss it or not. How about helping make it work?

Secondly, microstamping is a logistical impossibility. It's never going to happen, it's never going to be practical. It sounds like a maybe good idea for like 3 seconds. This idea just needs to die.

Secondly, what is logistically impossible about microstamping? Why so dismissive? Its value is limited, but I see none of the "issues" you see with this. More detail?


More on that:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...

http://blurbrain.com...



And Third, you can't sue a manufacturer for CRIMINAL MISUSE of their products. That would be like suing Gerber or Ka-Bar because they made a knife with a 8inch blade which was used to kill people. And for the record, knives hold a higher kill count than AR15s (1490 > 285)


No. You can not sue a manufacture for producing a device that it preforming as it was intended - killing. You CAN pressure and force manufactures to work on safety. This is what has happened in the auto maker industry. When mandated, and "pushed" THEY share in the burden of improving safety.

I'm probably not alone on this and I know there are people here who think otherwise. What do you think?

Mandatory insurance for gun owners should be added to the topic. It would do a lot of good too.
Todd0611
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 3:36:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 3:49:31 AM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...


Can I just say I hate articles like this? Whoever wrote this should get a Darwin award. I'm going to start off with the latter half of the article first. To start, I hate the idea of so called "smart guns" in it's current form. The technology isn't reliable and it only works with one person. How are you going to teach someone to shoot when they can't operate the gun? How is a spouse or child going to be able to defend themselves if the "owner" isn't home? How are they going to address all the guns with "non-smart" actions? I hate this idea with a passion. It needs to be heavily changed or it needs to die entirely.

Secondly, microstamping is a logistical impossibility. It's never going to happen, it's never going to be practical. It sounds like a maybe good idea for like 3 seconds. This idea just needs to die.

More on that:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...

http://blurbrain.com...



And Third, you can't sue a manufacturer for CRIMINAL MISUSE of their products. That would be like suing Gerber or Ka-Bar because they made a knife with a 8inch blade which was used to kill people. And for the record, knives hold a higher kill count than AR15s (1490 > 285)

I'm probably not alone on this and I know there are people here who think otherwise. What do you think?

First off, E.J. Dionne Jr., has to have one of the best titles and jobs..."opinion writer", it can't be too hard to write your own opinion everyday and get paid for it.

I am a gun owner supporter, and honestly do not know enough about microstamping to really say I'm for or against it. In simple terms, smart guns sound like a way to make the gun only dischargeable by the owner, and they could probably make it shoot for multiple identifiable people. Without looking into it, I can see how this could be useful in some situations. Guns are a huge topic, and responsibility, that one solution will not fit all, but that doesn't mean that every suggestion should be brushed off without trying it on some scale. For instance, I can't see smart guns being realistic when applied to military personnel, and probably not law enforcement.

I am opposed to letting people sue the manufacturers of guns, because IMO, that would not be fair or right. If someone steals my gun, and kills someone, that company should not be held liable. The knife example in the other posts shows why. Do you want to sue MLB, or the maker of bats, if someone bashed in another person's skull, and killed them. That being said, insurance for gun owners, depending on the layout, may be an idea to look at. I guess it depends on the intent, and what the insurance covers; however, I also see this as a way for someone to use lawyers to sue insurance companies for large sums of money. Too many people sue in this day and age, because they know that it's cheaper for a company to just pay a settlement, then it is to draw out a legal battle. The insurance payouts from claims would probably make it to where the cost would only be affordable by the upper middle class, and the rich, and then you'd have people ticked off because you'd be making their second amendment right unaffordable (which may be the intent politically speaking).

As a gun supporter, I can understand society's concerns, and I am willing to listen, and look at reasonable proposals to help curb gun violence. If someone has a good argument, then it's fair to listen to it, as long as they also respectfully listen to why you think it wouldn't work. While these topics will continue to show up from time to time, due to shootings that hit the headlines, I believe if they truly, honestly want to curb gun violence, they need to address it in the areas where it has the most impact- gang violence in inner cities, and violent drug crime.
Mr_Anderson
Posts: 116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 6:31:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 3:36:37 PM, Todd0611 wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:49:31 AM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...


Can I just say I hate articles like this? Whoever wrote this should get a Darwin award. I'm going to start off with the latter half of the article first. To start, I hate the idea of so called "smart guns" in it's current form. The technology isn't reliable and it only works with one person. How are you going to teach someone to shoot when they can't operate the gun? How is a spouse or child going to be able to defend themselves if the "owner" isn't home? How are they going to address all the guns with "non-smart" actions? I hate this idea with a passion. It needs to be heavily changed or it needs to die entirely.

Secondly, microstamping is a logistical impossibility. It's never going to happen, it's never going to be practical. It sounds like a maybe good idea for like 3 seconds. This idea just needs to die.

More on that:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...

http://blurbrain.com...



And Third, you can't sue a manufacturer for CRIMINAL MISUSE of their products. That would be like suing Gerber or Ka-Bar because they made a knife with a 8inch blade which was used to kill people. And for the record, knives hold a higher kill count than AR15s (1490 > 285)

I'm probably not alone on this and I know there are people here who think otherwise. What do you think?

First off, E.J. Dionne Jr., has to have one of the best titles and jobs..."opinion writer", it can't be too hard to write your own opinion everyday and get paid for it.

I am a gun owner supporter, and honestly do not know enough about microstamping to really say I'm for or against it.

I'm against it because it's a non-practical feature. Both in terms of gun usage and manufacturing them. Any small "code" on the firing pin or extractor will wear off in a few hundred, maybe a thousand rounds.

In simple terms, smart guns sound like a way to make the gun only dischargeable by the owner, and they could probably make it shoot for multiple identifiable people. Without looking into it, I can see how this could be useful in some situations. Guns are a huge topic, and responsibility, that one solution will not fit all, but that doesn't mean that every suggestion should be brushed off without trying it on some scale. For instance, I can't see smart guns being realistic when applied to military personnel, and probably not law enforcement.

I don't like the idea because you're compromising the gun by electronics. What if the gun gets wet? What if you burn your hands and the gun doesn't recognize you?

I am opposed to letting people sue the manufacturers of guns, because IMO, that would not be fair or right. If someone steals my gun, and kills someone, that company should not be held liable. The knife example in the other posts shows why. Do you want to sue MLB, or the maker of bats, if someone bashed in another person's skull, and killed them. That being said, insurance for gun owners, depending on the layout, may be an idea to look at. I guess it depends on the intent, and what the insurance covers; however, I also see this as a way for someone to use lawyers to sue insurance companies for large sums of money. Too many people sue in this day and age, because they know that it's cheaper for a company to just pay a settlement, then it is to draw out a legal battle. The insurance payouts from claims would probably make it to where the cost would only be affordable by the upper middle class, and the rich, and then you'd have people ticked off because you'd be making their second amendment right unaffordable (which may be the intent politically speaking).

As a gun supporter, I can understand society's concerns, and I am willing to listen, and look at reasonable proposals to help curb gun violence. If someone has a good argument, then it's fair to listen to it, as long as they also respectfully listen to why you think it wouldn't work. While these topics will continue to show up from time to time, due to shootings that hit the headlines, I believe if they truly, honestly want to curb gun violence, they need to address it in the areas where it has the most impact- gang violence in inner cities, and violent drug crime.
Mr_Anderson
Posts: 116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 6:43:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 2:50:39 PM, TBR wrote:

Can I just say I hate articles like this? Whoever wrote this should get a Darwin award. I'm going to start off with the latter half of the article first. To start, I hate the idea of so called "smart guns" in it's current form. The technology isn't reliable and it only works with one person. How are you going to teach someone to shoot when they can't operate the gun? How is a spouse or child going to be able to defend themselves if the "owner" isn't home? How are they going to address all the guns with "non-smart" actions? I hate this idea with a passion. It needs to be heavily changed or it needs to die entirely.


Speaking first to "smart" technology. Yes it can work. Small issues like how many can be associated with a gun can and will be overcome (even though it is NOT necessary to be successful). When every effort to implement is met with not just resistance, but lunatic rage, it is hard to get people interested in working on it. This is not going away, and will be a with us if you like it or not - dismiss it or not. How about helping make it work?

Well I disagree with you until that the electronics are guaranteed to work after being submerged in water, ran over by an SUV, an EMP and regular use. Electronics aren't known for having the greatest life span.

Secondly, microstamping is a logistical impossibility. It's never going to happen, it's never going to be practical. It sounds like a maybe good idea for like 3 seconds. This idea just needs to die.

Secondly, what is logistically impossible about microstamping? Why so dismissive? Its value is limited, but I see none of the "issues" you see with this. More detail?

First, creating a mark that small is going to require a RIDICULOUS amount of precision. This amount of precision will do 2 things. It will slow down manufacturing and in time it will wear out completely. It's not worth the time. Especially considering the only thing you have to do to defeat it, is buy a dremel with a sander or pick up your brass.



More on that:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...

http://blurbrain.com...



And Third, you can't sue a manufacturer for CRIMINAL MISUSE of their products. That would be like suing Gerber or Ka-Bar because they made a knife with a 8inch blade which was used to kill people. And for the record, knives hold a higher kill count than AR15s (1490 > 285)


No. You can not sue a manufacture for producing a device that it preforming as it was intended - killing. You CAN pressure and force manufactures to work on safety. This is what has happened in the auto maker industry. When mandated, and "pushed" THEY share in the burden of improving safety.

So how would you make guns safer without compromising their function?

I'm probably not alone on this and I know there are people here who think otherwise. What do you think?

Mandatory insurance for gun owners should be added to the topic. It would do a lot of good too.

Why?
Todd0611
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 7:02:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 6:31:56 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:36:37 PM, Todd0611 wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:49:31 AM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...


Can I just say I hate articles like this? Whoever wrote this should get a Darwin award. I'm going to start off with the latter half of the article first. To start, I hate the idea of so called "smart guns" in it's current form. The technology isn't reliable and it only works with one person. How are you going to teach someone to shoot when they can't operate the gun? How is a spouse or child going to be able to defend themselves if the "owner" isn't home? How are they going to address all the guns with "non-smart" actions? I hate this idea with a passion. It needs to be heavily changed or it needs to die entirely.

Secondly, microstamping is a logistical impossibility. It's never going to happen, it's never going to be practical. It sounds like a maybe good idea for like 3 seconds. This idea just needs to die.

More on that:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...

http://blurbrain.com...



And Third, you can't sue a manufacturer for CRIMINAL MISUSE of their products. That would be like suing Gerber or Ka-Bar because they made a knife with a 8inch blade which was used to kill people. And for the record, knives hold a higher kill count than AR15s (1490 > 285)

I'm probably not alone on this and I know there are people here who think otherwise. What do you think?

First off, E.J. Dionne Jr., has to have one of the best titles and jobs..."opinion writer", it can't be too hard to write your own opinion everyday and get paid for it.

I am a gun owner supporter, and honestly do not know enough about microstamping to really say I'm for or against it.


I'm against it because it's a non-practical feature. Both in terms of gun usage and manufacturing them. Any small "code" on the firing pin or extractor will wear off in a few hundred, maybe a thousand rounds.


In simple terms, smart guns sound like a way to make the gun only dischargeable by the owner, and they could probably make it shoot for multiple identifiable people. Without looking into it, I can see how this could be useful in some situations. Guns are a huge topic, and responsibility, that one solution will not fit all, but that doesn't mean that every suggestion should be brushed off without trying it on some scale. For instance, I can't see smart guns being realistic when applied to military personnel, and probably not law enforcement.



I don't like the idea because you're compromising the gun by electronics. What if the gun gets wet? What if you burn your hands and the gun doesn't recognize you?

I am opposed to letting people sue the manufacturers of guns, because IMO, that would not be fair or right. If someone steals my gun, and kills someone, that company should not be held liable. The knife example in the other posts shows why. Do you want to sue MLB, or the maker of bats, if someone bashed in another person's skull, and killed them. That being said, insurance for gun owners, depending on the layout, may be an idea to look at. I guess it depends on the intent, and what the insurance covers; however, I also see this as a way for someone to use lawyers to sue insurance companies for large sums of money. Too many people sue in this day and age, because they know that it's cheaper for a company to just pay a settlement, then it is to draw out a legal battle. The insurance payouts from claims would probably make it to where the cost would only be affordable by the upper middle class, and the rich, and then you'd have people ticked off because you'd be making their second amendment right unaffordable (which may be the intent politically speaking).

As a gun supporter, I can understand society's concerns, and I am willing to listen, and look at reasonable proposals to help curb gun violence. If someone has a good argument, then it's fair to listen to it, as long as they also respectfully listen to why you think it wouldn't work. While these topics will continue to show up from time to time, due to shootings that hit the headlines, I believe if they truly, honestly want to curb gun violence, they need to address it in the areas where it has the most impact- gang violence in inner cities, and violent drug crime.

Those are all valid points, I just don't know enough about the intricacies of gun manufacturing. These are the kinds of conversations that need to happen with calm, reasonable people. You can't get a solution, unless people put ideas out there and discuss, and when people aren't willing to hash things out like adults (i.e. see Congress), that's when things never get solved. I'm constantly amazed by the technologies that come out all the time, and maybe some form of "smart guns" could be used for a certain segment of the population. I'm not saying its feasible, or even cost-effective, and so far as electronics go, don't they make things all the time that are "waterproof"?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 7:05:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Speaking first to "smart" technology. Yes it can work. Small issues like how many can be associated with a gun can and will be overcome (even though it is NOT necessary to be successful). When every effort to implement is met with not just resistance, but lunatic rage, it is hard to get people interested in working on it. This is not going away, and will be a with us if you like it or not - dismiss it or not. How about helping make it work?

Well I disagree with you until that the electronics are guaranteed to work after being submerged in water, ran over by an SUV, an EMP and regular use. Electronics aren't known for having the greatest life span.

You will not accept the technology until it can withstand a EMP attack? That, to me, is completely unrealistic, however, it could be done, I don't agree that it is necessary.

As to the "run over by an SUV, I would say the gun itself is (mechanisms) are more likely to be damaged than embedded tech.

Generally, I am saying - you can set higher-and-higher requirements forever, and by doing so are doing exactly what you (gun-supporters) are insisting gun-control people are doing. The bar can not be so unreasonably high that it will never be met.


Secondly, microstamping is a logistical impossibility. It's never going to happen, it's never going to be practical. It sounds like a maybe good idea for like 3 seconds. This idea just needs to die.

Secondly, what is logistically impossible about microstamping? Why so dismissive? Its value is limited, but I see none of the "issues" you see with this. More detail?

First, creating a mark that small is going to require a RIDICULOUS amount of precision. This amount of precision will do 2 things. It will slow down manufacturing and in time it will wear out completely. It's not worth the time. Especially considering the only thing you have to do to defeat it, is buy a dremel with a sander or pick up your brass.

Each of these is true. Well, primarily true. It is not ridiculous precision for modern manufacturing, and I don't care for one second about the additional costs. You want air bags in your car? They cost money too. However, sure it can be removed. Sure a criminal may remove the stamp. Sure it may wear off. All that is not enough to simply say "don't do it". Some cases, criminals (stupid people) will not remove it. Some cases, they will not be warn down. Some cases (most) criminals will not pick-up their brass. And in some cases, airbags save your life. It is worth it - or at very least, it is worth not mocking very idea.




More on that:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...

http://blurbrain.com...



And Third, you can't sue a manufacturer for CRIMINAL MISUSE of their products. That would be like suing Gerber or Ka-Bar because they made a knife with a 8inch blade which was used to kill people. And for the record, knives hold a higher kill count than AR15s (1490 > 285)


No. You can not sue a manufacture for producing a device that it preforming as it was intended - killing. You CAN pressure and force manufactures to work on safety. This is what has happened in the auto maker industry. When mandated, and "pushed" THEY share in the burden of improving safety.

So how would you make guns safer without compromising their function?

I am not even willing to say that THIS is necessary. If the device is "less" functional, that may be an acceptable trade off. Again, to use a car. Emissions devices deprive the car of some power (function) but are mandated for good reason - the unintended consequence of going to the store. I don't go to the store to pollute. I go because I need eggs. That my car is not as functional as it could possibly be is not a reason for me to care. It still functions adequately for the purpose.


I'm probably not alone on this and I know there are people here who think otherwise. What do you think?

Mandatory insurance for gun owners should be added to the topic. It would do a lot of good too.

Why?

Opening the costs to the "market" is a favorite of the conservative. This idea should square well with that mindset. Insurance companies can work the numbers on what the actual costs of having a gun are - just like driving a car. That a gun can cause damage is as real as the reality that my car can be used in a manor that causes pain/suffering/death. For that reason, I must insure it. For that reason, guns should be insured.
Mr_Anderson
Posts: 116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 7:37:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 7:05:51 PM, TBR wrote:
Speaking first to "smart" technology. Yes it can work. Small issues like how many can be associated with a gun can and will be overcome (even though it is NOT necessary to be successful). When every effort to implement is met with not just resistance, but lunatic rage, it is hard to get people interested in working on it. This is not going away, and will be a with us if you like it or not - dismiss it or not. How about helping make it work?

Well I disagree with you until that the electronics are guaranteed to work after being submerged in water, ran over by an SUV, an EMP and regular use. Electronics aren't known for having the greatest life span.

You will not accept the technology until it can withstand a EMP attack? That, to me, is completely unrealistic, however, it could be done, I don't agree that it is necessary.

This is only to ensure it would be impervious to any other form of electrical interference. Sort of like how phones can somehow interfere with plane mechanisms or medical equipment.

As to the "run over by an SUV, I would say the gun itself is (mechanisms) are more likely to be damaged than embedded tech.

Not at all.

Generally, I am saying - you can set higher-and-higher requirements forever, and by doing so are doing exactly what you (gun-supporters) are insisting gun-control people are doing. The bar can not be so unreasonably high that it will never be met.

I know that. The bar I set is that any gun with this tech that you wish to enter the civilian market must be as reliable as guns without it. I don't think they're that high. Polymer framed pistols and almost any rifle can survive water and being run over.


Secondly, microstamping is a logistical impossibility. It's never going to happen, it's never going to be practical. It sounds like a maybe good idea for like 3 seconds. This idea just needs to die.

Secondly, what is logistically impossible about microstamping? Why so dismissive? Its value is limited, but I see none of the "issues" you see with this. More detail?

First, creating a mark that small is going to require a RIDICULOUS amount of precision. This amount of precision will do 2 things. It will slow down manufacturing and in time it will wear out completely. It's not worth the time. Especially considering the only thing you have to do to defeat it, is buy a dremel with a sander or pick up your brass.

Each of these is true. Well, primarily true. It is not ridiculous precision for modern manufacturing, and I don't care for one second about the additional costs. You want air bags in your car? They cost money too. However, sure it can be removed. Sure a criminal may remove the stamp. Sure it may wear off. All that is not enough to simply say "don't do it". Some cases, criminals (stupid people) will not remove it. Some cases, they will not be warn down. Some cases (most) criminals will not pick-up their brass. And in some cases, airbags save your life. It is worth it - or at very least, it is worth not mocking very idea.

They will always be worn down. Guns wear. It's a fact of life.As soon as they're worn, you're back to square one. With the plethora of non-marked guns available now, I fail to see any scenario where this is effective in curbing crime. Also, how would this address revolvers?





More on that:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...

http://blurbrain.com...



And Third, you can't sue a manufacturer for CRIMINAL MISUSE of their products. That would be like suing Gerber or Ka-Bar because they made a knife with a 8inch blade which was used to kill people. And for the record, knives hold a higher kill count than AR15s (1490 > 285)


No. You can not sue a manufacture for producing a device that it preforming as it was intended - killing. You CAN pressure and force manufactures to work on safety. This is what has happened in the auto maker industry. When mandated, and "pushed" THEY share in the burden of improving safety.

So how would you make guns safer without compromising their function?

I am not even willing to say that THIS is necessary. If the device is "less" functional, that may be an acceptable trade off. Again, to use a car. Emissions devices deprive the car of some power (function) but are mandated for good reason - the unintended consequence of going to the store. I don't go to the store to pollute. I go because I need eggs. That my car is not as functional as it could possibly be is not a reason for me to care. It still functions adequately for the purpose.

Reliability with firearms is never something to be put on the back burner under any circumstance ever. . Try pitching that anyone in the military or LE circles and they'll laugh. And I don't blame them.


I'm probably not alone on this and I know there are people here who think otherwise. What do you think?

Mandatory insurance for gun owners should be added to the topic. It would do a lot of good too.

Why?

Opening the costs to the "market" is a favorite of the conservative. This idea should square well with that mindset. Insurance companies can work the numbers on what the actual costs of having a gun are - just like driving a car. That a gun can cause damage is as real as the reality that my car can be used in a manor that causes pain/suffering/death. For that reason, I must insure it. For that reason, guns should be insured.

But the actual likelihood of you injuring someone with a car is much higher than with a gun, simply because of how frequently you use it.
Mr_Anderson
Posts: 116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 7:37:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 7:02:16 PM, Todd0611 wrote:
At 10/8/2015 6:31:56 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:36:37 PM, Todd0611 wrote:
At 10/8/2015 3:49:31 AM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...


Can I just say I hate articles like this? Whoever wrote this should get a Darwin award. I'm going to start off with the latter half of the article first. To start, I hate the idea of so called "smart guns" in it's current form. The technology isn't reliable and it only works with one person. How are you going to teach someone to shoot when they can't operate the gun? How is a spouse or child going to be able to defend themselves if the "owner" isn't home? How are they going to address all the guns with "non-smart" actions? I hate this idea with a passion. It needs to be heavily changed or it needs to die entirely.

Secondly, microstamping is a logistical impossibility. It's never going to happen, it's never going to be practical. It sounds like a maybe good idea for like 3 seconds. This idea just needs to die.

More on that:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...

http://blurbrain.com...



And Third, you can't sue a manufacturer for CRIMINAL MISUSE of their products. That would be like suing Gerber or Ka-Bar because they made a knife with a 8inch blade which was used to kill people. And for the record, knives hold a higher kill count than AR15s (1490 > 285)

I'm probably not alone on this and I know there are people here who think otherwise. What do you think?

First off, E.J. Dionne Jr., has to have one of the best titles and jobs..."opinion writer", it can't be too hard to write your own opinion everyday and get paid for it.

I am a gun owner supporter, and honestly do not know enough about microstamping to really say I'm for or against it.


I'm against it because it's a non-practical feature. Both in terms of gun usage and manufacturing them. Any small "code" on the firing pin or extractor will wear off in a few hundred, maybe a thousand rounds.


In simple terms, smart guns sound like a way to make the gun only dischargeable by the owner, and they could probably make it shoot for multiple identifiable people. Without looking into it, I can see how this could be useful in some situations. Guns are a huge topic, and responsibility, that one solution will not fit all, but that doesn't mean that every suggestion should be brushed off without trying it on some scale. For instance, I can't see smart guns being realistic when applied to military personnel, and probably not law enforcement.



I don't like the idea because you're compromising the gun by electronics. What if the gun gets wet? What if you burn your hands and the gun doesn't recognize you?

I am opposed to letting people sue the manufacturers of guns, because IMO, that would not be fair or right. If someone steals my gun, and kills someone, that company should not be held liable. The knife example in the other posts shows why. Do you want to sue MLB, or the maker of bats, if someone bashed in another person's skull, and killed them. That being said, insurance for gun owners, depending on the layout, may be an idea to look at. I guess it depends on the intent, and what the insurance covers; however, I also see this as a way for someone to use lawyers to sue insurance companies for large sums of money. Too many people sue in this day and age, because they know that it's cheaper for a company to just pay a settlement, then it is to draw out a legal battle. The insurance payouts from claims would probably make it to where the cost would only be affordable by the upper middle class, and the rich, and then you'd have people ticked off because you'd be making their second amendment right unaffordable (which may be the intent politically speaking).

As a gun supporter, I can understand society's concerns, and I am willing to listen, and look at reasonable proposals to help curb gun violence. If someone has a good argument, then it's fair to listen to it, as long as they also respectfully listen to why you think it wouldn't work. While these topics will continue to show up from time to time, due to shootings that hit the headlines, I believe if they truly, honestly want to curb gun violence, they need to address it in the areas where it has the most impact- gang violence in inner cities, and violent drug crime.

Those are all valid points, I just don't know enough about the intricacies of gun manufacturing. These are the kinds of conversations that need to happen with calm, reasonable people. You can't get a solution, unless people put ideas out there and discuss, and when people aren't willing to hash things out like adults (i.e. see Congress), that's when things never get solved. I'm constantly amazed by the technologies that come out all the time, and maybe some form of "smart guns" could be used for a certain segment of the population. I'm not saying its feasible, or even cost-effective, and so far as electronics go, don't they make things all the time that are "waterproof"?

They're getting there with it.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 8:25:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 7:37:10 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
At 10/8/2015 7:05:51 PM, TBR wrote:
Speaking first to "smart" technology. Yes it can work. Small issues like how many can be associated with a gun can and will be overcome (even though it is NOT necessary to be successful). When every effort to implement is met with not just resistance, but lunatic rage, it is hard to get people interested in working on it. This is not going away, and will be a with us if you like it or not - dismiss it or not. How about helping make it work?

Well I disagree with you until that the electronics are guaranteed to work after being submerged in water, ran over by an SUV, an EMP and regular use. Electronics aren't known for having the greatest life span.

You will not accept the technology until it can withstand a EMP attack? That, to me, is completely unrealistic, however, it could be done, I don't agree that it is necessary.

This is only to ensure it would be impervious to any other form of electrical interference. Sort of like how phones can somehow interfere with plane mechanisms or medical equipment.

Well, if that is the threshold we are there already. Shielding is enough to make them not mess with, or be messed with, by your cell phone.


As to the "run over by an SUV, I would say the gun itself is (mechanisms) are more likely to be damaged than embedded tech.

Not at all.

I think I would make a strong stand on this one. The fiddly bits of a gun are not going to be necessary any tech shoved into and protected by its casing. Run over a gun with a car, and its handle will break first, and depending on type, the cascading failures would move along.


Generally, I am saying - you can set higher-and-higher requirements forever, and by doing so are doing exactly what you (gun-supporters) are insisting gun-control people are doing. The bar can not be so unreasonably high that it will never be met.

I know that. The bar I set is that any gun with this tech that you wish to enter the civilian market must be as reliable as guns without it. I don't think they're that high. Polymer framed pistols and almost any rifle can survive water and being run over.

Again, respectfully disagree. Asking that any additional augmentation to the device never add additional failure points is an impossibility and setting the bar too high. We add a safety to the gun, that is an additional bit that interferes with the functioning of the device, is an added point of piratical failure, but would not demand we give it up until it is proven that it would never cause failure (piratical) of the device.



Secondly, microstamping is a logistical impossibility. It's never going to happen, it's never going to be practical. It sounds like a maybe good idea for like 3 seconds. This idea just needs to die.

Secondly, what is logistically impossible about microstamping? Why so dismissive? Its value is limited, but I see none of the "issues" you see with this. More detail?

First, creating a mark that small is going to require a RIDICULOUS amount of precision. This amount of precision will do 2 things. It will slow down manufacturing and in time it will wear out completely. It's not worth the time. Especially considering the only thing you have to do to defeat it, is buy a dremel with a sander or pick up your brass.

Each of these is true. Well, primarily true. It is not ridiculous precision for modern manufacturing, and I don't care for one second about the additional costs. You want air bags in your car? They cost money too. However, sure it can be removed. Sure a criminal may remove the stamp. Sure it may wear off. All that is not enough to simply say "don't do it". Some cases, criminals (stupid people) will not remove it. Some cases, they will not be warn down. Some cases (most) criminals will not pick-up their brass. And in some cases, airbags save your life. It is worth it - or at very least, it is worth not mocking very idea.

They will always be worn down. Guns wear. It's a fact of life.As soon as they're worn, you're back to square one. With the plethora of non-marked guns available now, I fail to see any scenario where this is effective in curbing crime. Also, how would this address revolvers?

They WILL always ware down. Not immediately, and not irrevocably (it can be fixed). Further saying, the number of guns in existence makes this pointless is simply giving up on the issue. Sure we can start now. Sure we can retrofit. Problems, or roadblocks like this are simply put there to stop any case for moving forward. Let me put that another way. If the only choice is "well we are screwed" then don't be surprised if some day people that WANT to restrict guns get their way.






More on that:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...

http://blurbrain.com...



And Third, you can't sue a manufacturer for CRIMINAL MISUSE of their products. That would be like suing Gerber or Ka-Bar because they made a knife with a 8inch blade which was used to kill people. And for the record, knives hold a higher kill count than AR15s (1490 > 285)


No. You can not sue a manufacture for producing a device that it preforming as it was intended - killing. You CAN pressure and force manufactures to work on safety. This is what has happened in the auto maker industry. When mandated, and "pushed" THEY share in the burden of improving safety.

So how would you make guns safer without compromising their function?

I am not even willing to say that THIS is necessary. If the device is "less" functional, that may be an acceptable trade off. Again, to use a car. Emissions devices deprive the car of some power (function) but are mandated for good reason - the unintended consequence of going to the store. I don't go to the store to pollute. I go because I need eggs. That my car is not as functional as it could possibly be is not a reason for me to care. It still functions adequately for the purpose.

Reliability with firearms is never something to be put on the back burner under any circumstance ever. . Try pitching that anyone in the military or LE circles and they'll laugh. And I don't blame them.

Most users of a gun are not LW or in the military. Many, as is often pointed out to me, are not even using the guns for protection. They are using it for fun, or hunting, or.... Regardless, a device that gets the 5 9s 99.999 is perfectly acceptable. The gun owner who has a gun without tech safety devices may open their gun when needed and find a problem OTHER than the tech device. Guns sometimes don't work. That has to be accepted.



I'm probably not alone on this and I know there are people here who think otherwise. What do you think?

Mandatory insurance for gun owners should be added to the topic. It would do a lot of good too.

Why?

Opening the costs to the "market" is a favorite of the conservative. This idea should square well with that mindset. Insurance companies can work the numbers on what the actual costs of having a gun are - just like driving a car. That a gun can cause damage is as real as the reality that my car can be used in a manor that causes pain/suffering/death. For that reason, I must insure it. For that reason, guns should be insured.

But the actual likelihood of you injuring someone with a car is much higher than with a gun, simply because of how frequently you use it.

Agreed. Let the insurance actuaries work those numbers. The cost you pay might be very low, if you are right, and I don't
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2015 11:42:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Guns are a tool used to threaten people. They are not supposed to be safe.
When My Ex-Wife points a gun at me and says "don't EVER come back here. I mean it!" I have to feel fear in order for that to work. A gun gets the job done because I know they are not safe.
Mr_Anderson
Posts: 116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2015 12:17:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/8/2015 8:25:05 PM, TBR wrote:
At 10/8/2015 7:37:10 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
At 10/8/2015 7:05:51 PM, TBR wrote:






Well, if that is the threshold we are there already. Shielding is enough to make them not mess with, or be messed with, by your cell phone.

For smart gun tech? Can you share your source?


As to the "run over by an SUV, I would say the gun itself is (mechanisms) are more likely to be damaged than embedded tech.

Not at all.

I think I would make a strong stand on this one. The fiddly bits of a gun are not going to be necessary any tech shoved into and protected by its casing. Run over a gun with a car, and its handle will break first, and depending on type, the cascading failures would move along.

If you've never handled a gun before, I can understand skepticism, but guns getting run over by cars is literally everywhere.

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...:

Hell, even polymer magazines can do it:

https://www.youtube.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

So show me tech that is this durable without compromising reliability and I'll bite.


Generally, I am saying - you can set higher-and-higher requirements forever, and by doing so are doing exactly what you (gun-supporters) are insisting gun-control people are doing. The bar can not be so unreasonably high that it will never be met.

I know that. The bar I set is that any gun with this tech that you wish to enter the civilian market must be as reliable as guns without it. I don't think they're that high. Polymer framed pistols and almost any rifle can survive water and being run over.

Again, respectfully disagree. Asking that any additional augmentation to the device never add additional failure points is an impossibility and setting the bar too high. We add a safety to the gun, that is an additional bit that interferes with the functioning of the device, is an added point of piratical failure, but would not demand we give it up until it is proven that it would never cause failure (piratical) of the device.




Secondly, microstamping is a logistical impossibility. It's never going to happen, it's never going to be practical. It sounds like a maybe good idea for like 3 seconds. This idea just needs to die.

Secondly, what is logistically impossible about microstamping? Why so dismissive? Its value is limited, but I see none of the "issues" you see with this. More detail?

First, creating a mark that small is going to require a RIDICULOUS amount of precision. This amount of precision will do 2 things. It will slow down manufacturing and in time it will wear out completely. It's not worth the time. Especially considering the only thing you have to do to defeat it, is buy a dremel with a sander or pick up your brass.

Each of these is true. Well, primarily true. It is not ridiculous precision for modern manufacturing, and I don't care for one second about the additional costs. You want air bags in your car? They cost money too. However, sure it can be removed. Sure a criminal may remove the stamp. Sure it may wear off. All that is not enough to simply say "don't do it". Some cases, criminals (stupid people) will not remove it. Some cases, they will not be warn down. Some cases (most) criminals will not pick-up their brass. And in some cases, airbags save your life. It is worth it - or at very least, it is worth not mocking very idea.

They will always be worn down. Guns wear. It's a fact of life.As soon as they're worn, you're back to square one. With the plethora of non-marked guns available now, I fail to see any scenario where this is effective in curbing crime. Also, how would this address revolvers?

They WILL always ware down. Not immediately, and not irrevocably (it can be fixed). Further saying, the number of guns in existence makes this pointless is simply giving up on the issue. Sure we can start now. Sure we can retrofit. Problems, or roadblocks like this are simply put there to stop any case for moving forward. Let me put that another way. If the only choice is "well we are screwed" then don't be surprised if some day people that WANT to restrict guns get their way.



Now that I'm thinking about it, it'd be easier to searialize the rounds themselves by box. Scan your DL whenever you buy a box of ammo and have a system that shows who bought what. IT'd be a lot easier than having the gun stamp the rounds.



More on that:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com...

http://blurbrain.com...



And Third, you can't sue a manufacturer for CRIMINAL MISUSE of their products. That would be like suing Gerber or Ka-Bar because they made a knife with a 8inch blade which was used to kill people. And for the record, knives hold a higher kill count than AR15s (1490 > 285)


No. You can not sue a manufacture for producing a device that it preforming as it was intended - killing. You CAN pressure and force manufactures to work on safety. This is what has happened in the auto maker industry. When mandated, and "pushed" THEY share in the burden of improving safety.

So how would you make guns safer without compromising their function?

I am not even willing to say that THIS is necessary. If the device is "less" functional, that may be an acceptable trade off. Again, to use a car. Emissions devices deprive the car of some power (function) but are mandated for good reason - the unintended consequence of going to the store. I don't go to the store to pollute. I go because I need eggs. That my car is not as functional as it could possibly be is not a reason for me to care. It still functions adequately for the purpose.

Reliability with firearms is never something to be put on the back burner under any circumstance ever. . Try pitching that anyone in the military or LE circles and they'll laugh. And I don't blame them.

Most users of a gun are not LW or in the military. Many, as is often pointed out to me, are not even using the guns for protection. They are using it for fun, or hunting, or.... Regardless, a device that gets the 5 9s 99.999 is perfectly acceptable. The gun owner who has a gun without tech safety devices may open their gun when needed and find a problem OTHER than the tech device. Guns sometimes don't work. That has to be accepted.

Actually, defense is the highest cited reason for buying a gun.

http://www.people-press.org...

And I get the whole 99.999% I get it. Just make sure electronics don't interfere with it.




I'm probably not alone on this and I know there are people here who think otherwise. What do you think?



Opening the costs to the "market" is a favorite of the conservative. This idea should square well with that mindset. Insurance companies can work the numbers on what the actual costs of having a gun are - just like driving a car. That a gun can cause damage is as real as the reality that my car can be used in a manor that causes pain/suffering/death. For that reason, I must insure it. For that reason, guns should be insured.

But the actual likelihood of you injuring someone with a car is much higher than with a gun, simply because of how frequently you use it.